PDA

View Full Version : Ideal School



Bipolar Bear
07-13-2008, 05:04 PM
I just realized that all my posts were awfully short and often unreflective. Here's a long one, with at least a hundred things to debate about. I wrote this shit about two years ago, when I was asked to reflect on an ideal school.


There aren't, and never will be, any ideal schools, since different people have different opinions on what constitutes an "ideal" school. My idea of an ideal school is one where the rules imposed on the students are all relevant (rules which serve no purpose such as not wearing a hat in class should be omitted). Furthermore, the students should have a greater influence on how the school is run since they're the ones which benefit or deal with the consequences of the teaching methods of the the teachers as well as a poor administration. Schools should operate as a democracy; not as a dictatorship where teachers have the power to do whatever they please.

The current system for education is poorly suited for male students. It has been proved by numerous studies that, in general, female students acheive greater success in school than boys. This is definitely not due to girls being smarter, since the average IQ's of both genders doesn't contain such a difference. This higher rate of success amongst women is primarily explained by behavioral factors.

Firstly, it's undeniable that our current scholar system favors behaviors which are typically feminine, such as obedience and docility. We are taught to obey without questioning, which can be greatly oppressing for male students. An ideal school must respect the fact that we aren't mindless robots and that we require an explanation before being bent to other people's will.

An ideal school must therefore be one which respects its students' opinions. Currently, schools ressemble some sort of jail where you can't even walk out of class without the fear of a consequence. An ideal school must contain a minimum of rules, teachers should quit trying to act like our parents. Classes such as ethics should be abolished; they are basically only government tactics to continue molding society into a uniform colony with identical values and thoughts. Unlike animals, humans function poorly in groups due to their individualism and originality, and it's time that we acknowledge this fact.

Another policy which should be implemented in schools is to remove homework. Students already spend the majority of our time in schools, which is already a deplorable situation, but giving them homework on weekends is truly unacceptable. We have ample class time to learn all the material we must know; the amount of homework a teacher gives is often proportional to his own incompetency. We should, if we must, remove useless classes and replace them with "homework classes", where we would do the work normally considered as homework.

To conclude, our current educational system is far from idea,, and it's imperative that we implement changes to it, such as the ones I proposed above.

Llamas
07-13-2008, 05:20 PM
I can't tell if this post is serious, or trying to start stuff, but I'll respond as though it's serious.


There aren't, and never will be, any ideal schools, since different people have different opinions on what constitutes an "ideal" school. My idea of an ideal school is one where the rules imposed on the students are all relevant (rules which serve no purpose such as not wearing a hat in class should be omitted). Furthermore, the students should have a greater influence on how the school is run since they're the ones which benefit or deal with the consequences of the teaching methods of the the teachers as well as a poor administration. Schools should operate as a democracy; not as a dictatorship where teachers have the power to do whatever they please.
Teachers have very, very little power, actually. The power lies in the district/superintendent in American schools. Even the principal of a school doesn't have much power. I personally believe teachers should have a little more freedom in most schools, but first we need to have better teachers in front of the classroom, or as Obama said in Minnesota, "an army of new teachers". If students had control, nobody would learn anything. Most students don't want to be in school, so I don't see it beneficial for them to decide things. (I am assuming we are speaking about high school here.)


Firstly, it's undeniable that our current scholar system favors behaviors which are typically feminine, such as obedience and docility. We are taught to obey without questioning, which can be greatly oppressing for male students. An ideal school must respect the fact that we aren't mindless robots and that we require an explanation before being bent to other people's will.
This extends to the more general idea that the education system needs to be broader and cater to more specific styles of learning. I wouldn't necessarily say it's catered more toward girls... but our school system works best for aural learners, and sometimes visual learners... but not really at all for tactile learners, which most Americans are.


An ideal school must therefore be one which respects its students' opinions. Currently, schools ressemble some sort of jail where you can't even walk out of class without the fear of a consequence. An ideal school must contain a minimum of rules, teachers should quit trying to act like our parents. Classes such as ethics should be abolished; they are basically only government tactics to continue molding society into a uniform colony with identical values and thoughts. Unlike animals, humans function poorly in groups due to their individualism and originality, and it's time that we acknowledge this fact.
You must understand that, if rules were abolished, most kids would not even attend school. Many high schoolers break the rules as it is. If you gain a teacher's respect, they will not hassle you about all these things; when I was in high school, most of my teachers had respect for me, and did not give me a hard time when I wasn't in class, or when I left class without asking- because they knew me well enough to know I wasn't up to no good, knew I was responsible. Most of my friends had the same situation. If you don't give your teachers a reason to trust you, why should they? Teachers hold rules in place for those who need them.


Another policy which should be implemented in schools is to remove homework. Students already spend the majority of our time in schools, which is already a deplorable situation, but giving them homework on weekends is truly unacceptable. We have ample class time to learn all the material we must know; the amount of homework a teacher gives is often proportional to his own incompetency. We should, if we must, remove useless classes and replace them with "homework classes", where we would do the work normally considered as homework.
I think that the types of homework many teachers give out is pointless busy work. It's something that the teachers put no effort into creating, and just give out so they have a way to grade the students. However, homework is the closest thing schools have to helping out tactile learners. Homework is what gets a lot of people through school- people who fail exams like crazy. Schools need to work with different learning styles, which means homework is important. Also, "study hall" is the same thing as "homework class".

Little_Miss_1565
07-13-2008, 05:26 PM
I think you have a lot of good points.

I think one of the ways to get around the disparity between the genders in class is same-sex education. That isn't to say that boys and girls can't and shouldn't interact; of course they should. But in a classroom environment, there are many, many differences that might end up with one gender being underserved. This isn't the right choice for every student, though, so I think it should be an option.

There are a lot of things that pissed me off about high school and middle school that I never fully understood or appreciated until I got to college, like homework. I fucking hated math like nothing else. I couldn't see the point in wasting my time on geometry proofs or learning sines and cosines and tangents and cotangents and whatever else, or why I should go home and waste more time on meaningless bullshit. When I got to college, though, it turns out that calculus does all the cool shit that is actually useful...and you have to use all those stupid geometry things in order to do it. I saw lightbulbs.

What sort of homework did you mean?

Llamas
07-13-2008, 05:31 PM
I think one of the ways to get around the disparity between the genders in class is same-sex education. That isn't to say that boys and girls can't and shouldn't interact; of course they should. But in a classroom environment, there are many, many differences that might end up with one gender being underserved. This isn't the right choice for every student, though, so I think it should be an option.

I actually had been thinking about this lately. I'm teaching robots and rockets camps for girls this summer, and have been noticing a distinctive way in which these classes of only girls differ from classes with boys and girls. The problem is that, while we do need to deal with the different learning styles, I don't think it's a good idea to pigeon-hole people based on gender more than is already done. Obviously, not all boys and not all girls learn the same way... so how would we determine the line? We can't just say, "all boys in this class, all girls in this class". Plus, who determines it if it's an option? I have a feeling that a lot of parents would put their kid in the "same sex" classes for the wrong reasons, and the kids would be hindered by the environment.

Little_Miss_1565
07-13-2008, 05:54 PM
I actually had been thinking about this lately. I'm teaching robots and rockets camps for girls this summer, and have been noticing a distinctive way in which these classes of only girls differ from classes with boys and girls. The problem is that, while we do need to deal with the different learning styles, I don't think it's a good idea to pigeon-hole people based on gender more than is already done. Obviously, not all boys and not all girls learn the same way... so how would we determine the line? We can't just say, "all boys in this class, all girls in this class". Plus, who determines it if it's an option? I have a feeling that a lot of parents would put their kid in the "same sex" classes for the wrong reasons, and the kids would be hindered by the environment.

I agree, pigeon-holing is bad. But not every school in America is going to go single-sex. I meant 'option' to be entire schools, not individual classes. I went to a single-sex college and it was the perfect environment for me. It's not so perfect for my sister, though she's making a go of it. The classroom environments were much more cooperative than co-ed ones. I spent a summer at Columbia University after I lost a semester of school due to illness, so I know this from experience. My Columbia classes were intensely competitive and usually devolved into intellectual pissing matches, an environment that turned me off completely. I didn't dial back my own comments, but in that moment I understood why sometimes girls don't participate in classes.

We had cross-enrollment privileges at four other colleges in the area (all within a half-hour's drive) and only one other was also a women's college so sometimes there were dudes in some of my classes, but the Mt. Holyoke way was always what governed how the classes operated regardless of who was in them. If I wanted, I could also experience your average co-ed classroom experience at Amherst, UMass, or Hampshire. But each college had its own unique identity. The other women's college (Smith) was waaaay different from Mt. Holyoke.

Llamas
07-13-2008, 06:06 PM
I agree, pigeon-holing is bad. But not every school in America is going to go single-sex. I meant 'option' to be entire schools, not individual classes. I went to a single-sex college and it was the perfect environment for me. It's not so perfect for my sister, though she's making a go of it. The classroom environments were much more cooperative than co-ed ones. I spent a summer at Columbia University after I lost a semester of school due to illness, so I know this from experience. My Columbia classes were intensely competitive and usually devolved into intellectual pissing matches, an environment that turned me off completely. I didn't dial back my own comments, but in that moment I understood why sometimes girls don't participate in classes.

We had cross-enrollment privileges at four other colleges in the area (all within a half-hour's drive) and only one other was also a women's college so sometimes there were dudes in some of my classes, but the Mt. Holyoke way was always what governed how the classes operated regardless of who was in them. If I wanted, I could also experience your average co-ed classroom experience at Amherst, UMass, or Hampshire. But each college had its own unique identity. The other women's college (Smith) was waaaay different from Mt. Holyoke.

Hmm, while colleges are not entirely different from high schools, I do believe that people are much different beings in both. I think it's more important in high school to interact with everyone, while in college you're likely matured and developed to the point where it's not so necessary.

I will throw out there that we do have private schools that are single sex, and they are an option. It would be nice to have a few public schools with that option, too, but I still think that gender isn't really the best way to separate groups.

For instance, if you look at the German school system, it's very arguable whether or not it's better or worse than ours. The schools over there basically put people in one of three schools at a young teen age: one for people who basically will go no further than high school, one that's equivalent of an associate's degree, and one for kids who will go to University. In some ways, it's awesome to separate kids based on how motivated they are in school: it sucked for me as a college-bound student to have kids who dropped out of high school due to failing in my classes. And I'm sure having college bound kids in class makes kids who don't want to go beyond high school feel incompetent and not work as hard. At the same time, it's rough to have kids basically decide their path so early on.

I guess there are just a lot of things that need to change, and there's no easy fix... but gender is definitely something that should be in the equation.

Little_Miss_1565
07-13-2008, 06:57 PM
Hmm, while colleges are not entirely different from high schools, I do believe that people are much different beings in both. I think it's more important in high school to interact with everyone, while in college you're likely matured and developed to the point where it's not so necessary.

I will throw out there that we do have private schools that are single sex, and they are an option. It would be nice to have a few public schools with that option, too, but I still think that gender isn't really the best way to separate groups

I was the exact same person going into college that graduated high school, so I'm not sure I can get behind you on what you're saying. I hated just about everyone who went to my high school and would have sooner chugged bleach than hang out with people outside my peer group, because everyone else were assholes.

Private schools are only an option for the privileged, so I don't think you can say they're an option at all. It may not be PC to acknowledge differences between the genders but it's one way to organize schools that is helpful to some though not all as I've already discussed.

wheelchairman
07-13-2008, 07:36 PM
I only skimmed this but someone made a point saying that if students had control it wouldn't be an improvement....

Well that's really quite silly. If you look at Europe in the past 40 years (Since the student protests, particularly in France in 1968) students here have been protesting for more money towards the schools, new equipment, new textbooks when they deem it necessary. Not because they really love school, but because they don't want to be screwed over.

In fact I think one of the major problems in the US is that it seems many student interest organizations are run from the top down. You never hear about students striking and well you would think that there are many places in the US where it would be logical too...

Anyways that's as much as I wanted to add.

Llamas
07-13-2008, 07:43 PM
I only skimmed this but someone made a point saying that if students had control it wouldn't be an improvement....

Well that's really quite silly. If you look at Europe in the past 40 years (Since the student protests, particularly in France in 1968) students here have been protesting for more money towards the schools, new equipment, new textbooks when they deem it necessary. Not because they really love school, but because they don't want to be screwed over.

In fact I think one of the major problems in the US is that it seems many student interest organizations are run from the top down. You never hear about students striking and well you would think that there are many places in the US where it would be logical too...

Anyways that's as much as I wanted to add.

Oh actually there are strikes/protests. There were a couple walkouts at my school when I was like 15 and 16... there were student-led fund raisers for certain programs and teachers who were supposed to be cut...

bipolar was saying more along the lines of this quote: "you can't even walk out of class without the fear of a consequence."

I don't think the consequences are that bad- I saw people walk out of class many times in high school, and the worst thing they got was a detention (which was rare). Staying an hour late after school is over is not that big of a deal.

Per, you're just speaking of student contribution in a different way than the poster described.

Little_Miss_1565
07-13-2008, 07:52 PM
[quote=wheelchairman;1154327
In fact I think one of the major problems in the US is that it seems many student interest organizations are run from the top down. You never hear about students striking and well you would think that there are many places in the US where it would be logical too...[/quote]

That's really interesting. I think that the problem is that strikers overseas did it because they value education and don't want their education to be shorted by the government. Parents get upset about the lack of funding to education here, but the students, not so much. Well, college students get upset about funding. Are those the sorts of strikes you mean or do students of all levels protest?

Bipolar Bear
07-13-2008, 10:13 PM
I don't think the consequences are that bad- I saw people walk out of class many times in high school, and the worst thing they got was a detention (which was rare). Staying an hour late after school is over is not that big of a deal.


Why should there be any consequences? It's our life, and we're entitled to do whatever we want with it. Of course, if we choose not to attend school we'd probably end up scoring lower on our examinations, but that's our decision. School currently resembles a large daycare. Also, it was mentioned above that "certain people needed graded homework to pass". That's ridiculous...how can you expect to pass high school without being able to pass an exam? Except in grade school or something, homework counts for about 10% of the overall mark where exams are approximately 90%, and often with a end-of-year summation exam which ranges from 30%-50% of your yearly mark.

It has been said that "most students don't want to be in school". Why exactly do you think that's the case? View it from this perspective: "slaves shouldn't be allowed to decide how their lives are run. Most of them don't even want to be slaves." In any case, those students which don't want to learn shouldn't have to. It's not like if it mattered. What's the point of this endless cycle which is society, where we are forced along a predetermined path which ignores personal feelings and desires. If you don't wish to go to school, why in the world must you be forced to? After a generation, people would realize that if they want a certain lifestyle, they have to go to school, and they'll attend it by their own free will. I know this sounds very idealistic, but it's better than the illusion of freedom we currently possess. Taken to the extreme, a chaotic world of anarchy is better than a civilized and crimeless world of robots devoid of any emotion, which is where we're heading.


I think you have a lot of good points.

I think one of the ways to get around the disparity between the genders in class is same-sex education. That isn't to say that boys and girls can't and shouldn't interact; of course they should. But in a classroom environment, there are many, many differences that might end up with one gender being underserved. This isn't the right choice for every student, though, so I think it should be an option.

I completely agree, that would be favorable and would acknowledge that different people need different things instead of forcibly assimilating everyone who doesn't fit. It's far from being a solution, but it's a huge step in the right direction that would surely be beneficial.

___________

Anyway, lama, I take it you've never had any problems with the school system because you fit perfectly in it. Plus, you're now teaching. PLUS, you're a female and trust me, women and men do think differently. You can't understand my perspective in any way. I don't want to come out of this as a sexist but women are generally passive in behavior and are against revolution and change. History proves this, and basically well...everything in daily life will go to prove this. Along the path you're heading, if teachers were still beating the children you'd probably tell me it's fine since most students would disobey if that weren't the case OR that "they deserved it, and those who act well don't get beat up" because you would probably be one of those that aren't beaten up. This example is trying to show two things: how you can't relate to the current problems in education, and how you would probably go to defend ANYTHING that's currently valued as good, such as beating children, due to passive behavior and societal influence.

Education is a farce.

Little_Miss_1565
07-13-2008, 10:41 PM
It's our life, and we're entitled to do whatever we want with it.....I don't want to come out of this as a sexist but women are generally passive in behavior and are against revolution and change. History proves this, and basically well...everything in daily life will go to prove this.

Okay, first things first.

Yeah, "it's my life and I can do with it as I please" is a romantic notion, but there's a reason the age of legal emancipation is 18 -- you're out of high school by then, generally, and able to hold down a job, and thus live on your own and not be a drain on taxpayer funds. Lots of people gain a shitton of weight their first year out of the nest because suddenly, they really CAN do whatever they want and eat cake and pizza for breakfast and never exercise and sleep all the time. I'd love it if self-discipline was something that we were simply born with, but experience has taught me that it's not, and one of the ways we learn it is our current system of forced education. But because it's compulsory it gets a lot of rebellion, and those rebelling the hardest against it generally find out too late why people saw fit to pass laws obligating everyone to go to school.

Now for the second things second. OH HELL NO YOU DID NOT. Tell me, do I strike you as passive? Do I resist revolution? There was an old adage at my college: Quiet women rarely make history. You can't say that women "tend" to be passive any more than I can say that boys in high school "tend" to be smelly football playing idiots. If you want people to quit putting you in a box that you don't fit in, the first thing you can do towards that is stop doing the same to others. You're angry about the way you've been treated by others; by the sounds of it, you should be. Don't make the mistake of taking it out on women.

Bipolar Bear
07-13-2008, 10:54 PM
Now for the second things second. OH HELL NO YOU DID NOT. Tell me, do I strike you as passive? Do I resist revolution? There was an old adage at my college: Quiet women rarely make history. You can't say that women "tend" to be passive any more than I can say that boys in high school "tend" to be smelly football playing idiots. If you want people to quit putting you in a box that you don't fit in, the first thing you can do towards that is stop doing the same to others. You're angry about the way you've been treated by others; by the sounds of it, you should be. Don't make the mistake of taking it out on women.

I was pretty much expecting this reaction. Maybe I am sexist after all because I still think that what I said was true. Being a woman you probably won't agree, but women dislike confrontation and have accepted to be looked down upon (and are still in certain cultures) compared to men without any feeling of injustice for hundreds of years. They still are very passive compared to men, don't join wars and dislike strikes and change. Women are also poor leaders compared to men. Women do have a lot of qualities men don't have though, I'm just trying to relate this to the situation.

As for the issue of doing what you please, it shouldn't be up to the government to decide what we should do but rather up to the parents. The government tries to control everyone into becoming an assimilated, and to fit into society. Forcing children to attend school is the largest example since it's where they get to teach them everything they must know to be another fucking drone in the workplace, and help our society "progress".

Little_Miss_1565
07-13-2008, 11:02 PM
I was pretty much expecting this reaction. Maybe I am sexist after all because I still think that what I said was true. Being a woman you probably won't agree, but women dislike confrontation and have accepted to be looked down upon (and are still in certain cultures) compared to men without any feeling of injustice for hundreds of years. They still are very passive compared to men, don't join wars and dislike strikes and change. Women are also poor leaders compared to men. Women do have a lot of qualities men don't have though, I'm just trying to relate this to the situation.

You didn't answer my question. Do I strike you as passive? Clearly, I dislike confrontation because that's not part of my daily routine on this forum or anything. And if you think for one second that women are without question unilaterally accepting of being second class citizens in cultures across the globe, how do you answer the women who risked death and the women who were actually put to death for the crime of educating young girls under the Taliban in Afghanistan? Did you happen to catch "Persepolis" when it was in theaters? How about the women who voluntarily enlisted in the US Army and currently serve in the Middle East? What about the ones who have been raped and/or murdered for their desire to fight for their country by their fellow soldiers? Don't join wars?! Dislike strikes? Tell that to the unions around the country.

The only thing that thinking like this does is further disservice men because it feeds into the myth that women are what a man's problem is and if it wasn't for them and their triflin', everything would be different for them. The real problem is within themselves, and hatred for women is just a smokescreen. Same for anyone who blames an entire section of humanity for their problems. The situations we find ourselves in are a direct reflection of ourselves and our weaknesses. If we can learn to master those, our outward problems disappear. Keep shadow boxing with ghosts like this, though, and all you do is nothing.



As for the issue of doing what you please, it shouldn't be up to the government to decide what we should do but rather up to the parents. The government tries to control everyone into becoming an assimilated, and to fit into society. Forcing children to attend school is the largest example since it's where they get to teach them everything they must know to be another fucking drone in the workplace, and help our society "progress".

Oh yeah, my classmate who got pregnant at 16 on purpose so she and her boyfriend could stay together despite her parents' objections to him is a really good judge of what's best for another living being.

Nothing in my public school education taught me how to be a workplace drone. Most of my teachers hated me because I was so different. But I was lucky enough to have enough teachers who believed in me and my unique vision for myself and my future that I didn't lose hope. I got the best education I could get for myself and I've been living my every dream ever since I moved out of my mom's house -- and it's all because of that compulsory education that I was obliged to continue despite all the death threats I received from my fellow students.

Bipolar Bear
07-13-2008, 11:19 PM
Nothing in my public school education taught me how to be a workplace drone. Most of my teachers hated me because I was so different. But I was lucky enough to have enough teachers who believed in me and my unique vision for myself and my future that I didn't lose hope. I got the best education I could get for myself and I've been living my every dream ever since I moved out of my mom's house -- and it's all because of that compulsory education that I was obliged to continue despite all the death threats I received from my fellow students.

I don't mean to be rude but this isn't about you. I was talking in general, as in society, or in millions of people. Your personal experience is rather insignificant. Perhaps it has worked out for you, but according to statistics it doesn't work out for way too many people. These people should have a chance to live a good life. We are currently in a nation where the majority are content, but minorities are too often ignored.

As for woman personality, let's say about 10% of conflicts are started by women. You could easily find a shitload of examples of women fighting, like you just did. Fact remains, in total conflicts caused by men LARGELY outweigh it. I said women in general are passive, which doesn't rule out small (and for the sake of this conversation, rather insignificant) exceptions. The problem is that society acts as a large mass, a bit like an insect colony, where exceptions such as you are insignificant in the end result. Basically, if most women are passive, all women will be forced to live a passive lifestyle.

Rag Doll
07-13-2008, 11:34 PM
Holyshit. I...holyshit.

I just don't even know where to begin at the moment.

Little_Miss_1565
07-13-2008, 11:35 PM
I don't mean to be rude but this isn't about you. I was talking in general, as in society, or in millions of people. Your personal experience is rather insignificant. Perhaps it has worked out for you, but according to statistics it doesn't work out for way too many people. These people should have a chance to live a good life. We are currently in a nation where the majority are content, but minorities are too often ignored.

As for woman personality, let's say about 10% of conflicts are started by women. You could easily find a shitload of examples of women fighting, like you just did. Fact remains, in total conflicts caused by men LARGELY outweigh it. I said women in general are passive, which doesn't rule out small (and for the sake of this conversation, rather insignificant) exceptions. The problem is that society acts a large mass, a bit like an insect colony, where exceptions such as you are insignificant in the end result. Basically, if most women are passive, all women will be forced to live a passive lifestyle.

I use my personal example because seriously, if I could survive high school and not only get by but thrive and do better for myself than any of my classmates, I think it's possible for just about anyone to do the same. It's all about your mindset and how afraid you are to accept change within yourself. I set out to make every classmate who asked me if I was going to go Columbine on everyone, every teacher who announced to the class that I wore black eyeliner so that must mean I cut myself and people who cut themselves only do it for attention, every person who tried to take away that which made me unique would regret it. The best revenge, after all, is living well.

Besides, without concrete examples all we're doing is weak armchair philosophy grounded in nothing.

I'd like to think that most conflicts aren't started by women because of diplomacy and not passivity. But I submit to you that so long as any segment of society is content to relegate another to second or third-class status as you seem to be so ready to do to women, there's no real freedom for the other groups. Men are as negatively affected and controlled by societal expectations around the world as women are. But we are not living in some nihilist dream world where hope is futile and the actions of the many dictate the inevitable lives of the few.

The only thing making my lifestyle at all passive is a chronic illness, and even then I'm pretty sure I can still kick some ass. I'm lucky that way; I don't have to worry about being killed because someone saw too much of my ankle when I walked to the market. I live a free and empowered life so that women everywhere might be lifted up to that level.

Bipolar Bear
07-13-2008, 11:42 PM
I use my personal example because seriously, if I could survive high school and not only get by but thrive and do better for myself than any of my classmates, I think it's possible for just about anyone to do the same.


Wow, I really hate to break it out to you but actually many people don't survive high school. Our goal shouldn't be to simply "survive" either.

And for the record, I never said women should be second-class citizens; I'm unsure as to how you jumped to that conclusion. Women and men are fundamentally different, in general they both have qualities which the other gender doesn't possess as often. Trying to pretend that women and men are the same is exactly the contrary of what you were doing at the start when you were talking about separating guys and girls in different classes. Being on a smaller scale, you didn't feel personally biased in your thoughts back then but now you feel the need to protect women and this affects your judgment. Men do generally make better leaders, this isn't always true but they are in general less passive. And yes, one person does have little impact on a society of millions, except for a very small portion of people (in ruling positions are positions of fame) which I'm afraid neither of us are part of.

Haha I knew this thread had the potential to generate hundreds of debates. This is great.

Rag Doll
07-13-2008, 11:50 PM
Being a woman you probably won't agree, but women dislike confrontation and have accepted to be looked down upon (and are still in certain cultures) compared to men without any feeling of injustice for hundreds of years. They still are very passive compared to men, don't join wars and dislike strikes and change. Women are also poor leaders compared to men.

Well, just right there alone you said women accept being looked down upon and don't feel any injustice. Ummm....hello? You also said women are poor leaders compared to men. Kind of makes it seem like you *are* saying women are second class citizens.

Single-sex classrooms are a great idea. I read a whole bunch of stuff on this last year, so if you want documented stuff, it'll take me a while to find the books...so, sorry. But, teachers will gear their lessons towards boys at younger ages. They teach to the boys....give them attention, call on them, focus on them, etc. They usually do not even realize they are doing this. When asked later why they behaved this way, they say because the boys will misbehave or not pay attention otherwise....meanwhile, the girls are already made to feel like second class citizens (at seven years old!!)

As they get older, they feel like they shouldn't speak up. They have been taught that the class is pretty much for the boys. The boys become more involved than the girls because they got so much more attention early on....and that just continues. This is now high school. Also, girls are taught boys don't like smart girls, it isn't attractive, etc. So, why bother appearing intelligent? They won't get a man (ever see *Mean Girls*?).

In single sex settings, clearly this doesn't happen. In co-ed settings, teachers need to be taught much more about making things equal for BOTH and not favoring one or the other.

(sorry if this doesn't make sense, it's late and i've been drinking....as per usual lately).

Llamas
07-13-2008, 11:53 PM
Anyway, lama, I take it you've never had any problems with the school system because you fit perfectly in it. Plus, you're now teaching. PLUS, you're a female and trust me, women and men do think differently. You can't understand my perspective in any way. I don't want to come out of this as a sexist but women are generally passive in behavior and are against revolution and change. History proves this, and basically well...everything in daily life will go to prove this. Along the path you're heading, if teachers were still beating the children you'd probably tell me it's fine since most students would disobey if that weren't the case OR that "they deserved it, and those who act well don't get beat up" because you would probably be one of those that aren't beaten up. This example is trying to show two things: how you can't relate to the current problems in education, and how you would probably go to defend ANYTHING that's currently valued as good, such as beating children, due to passive behavior and societal influence.
You couldn't be more far off. I have TONS of problems with the education system in the US. Did you read my posts?? I am teaching because I want to work to change the system. My students love me, because I don't behave like a typical teacher. I have fun with my students, and give them plenty more freedom than a lot of teachers do. I understand the difference between giving the kids busy work that's going to bore them to the point where they aren't learning anything, and giving them productive things to do that they enjoy doing.

You are making tons of very wrong assumptions. How is Obama's army of new teachers passive, something that I very strongly support??

Obviously beating children is very wrong, and ruling over kids with an iron foot is wrong. Like I said, you need to earn respect in order to be respected. For instance, I let my students leave the classroom to go to the bathroom or whatever without any consequences, because I trust them. Once someone breaks my trust and does something strongly disruptive, I have them ask before they go. Other teachers are less trusting and do it the other way around, and yes many do take it way too far. But that's the fault of hiring bad teachers who don't actually know how to deal with kids.

There are definitely plenty of problems with the education system that need to be dealt with. However, the answer is not just letting kids do whatever they want. First we have to work to fix the problems. We have to make school interesting, we have to change things so that people are actually learning and enjoying it. There are plenty of places, like Per pointed out, where kids are more passionate about school and don't hate being there. Before we can let kids do what they want, we have to improve the system to the point where letting them do so won't lead to empty schools.



Clearly, I dislike confrontation because that's not part of my daily routine on this forum or anything.
I lol'd at that.



Oh yeah, my classmate who got pregnant at 16 on purpose so she and her boyfriend could stay together despite her parents' objections to him is a really good judge of what's best for another living being.
...Jesus Christ :-/ :-/

Little_Miss_1565
07-13-2008, 11:55 PM
Wow, I really hate to break it out to you but actually many people don't survive high school. Our goal shouldn't be to simply "survive" either.

And for the record, I never said women should be second-class citizens; I'm unsure as to how you jumped to that conclusion. Women and men are fundamentally different, in general they both have qualities which the other gender doesn't possess as often. Trying to pretend that women and men are the same is exactly the contrary of what you were doing at the start when you were talking about separating guys and girls in different classes. Being on a smaller scale, you didn't feel personally biased in your thoughts back then but now you feel the need to protect women and this affects your judgment. Men do generally make better leaders, this isn't always true but they are in general less passive. And yes, one person does have little impact on a society of millions, except for a very small portion of people (in ruling positions are positions of fame) which I'm afraid neither of us are part of.

Short term goals. First we attain survival. Then we thrive. If someone is drowning, you don't teach them to waterski.

There is an enormous difference between appreciating the differences between the genders and assigning judgmental language like "better" as you're doing. I don't think you can say men are better leaders because they're less passive; I've known a great deal of amazing women leaders who commanded respect and got things done not because they were able to bully the most people around but because they understood how people worked and liked to work and solved problems with diplomacy. There's a time and place for force, and there is a time and place for diplomacy. You cannot say unilaterally that one or the other is best and as such a particularly gendered person will be the best for the job.

I'm in favor of separating the genders not only to cultivate those qualities that differ one from the other, but also to protect each from the unfair expectations put upon them by the other. Men in this society are taught that emotions are weak; that love is for pussies so get out there and nail as many broads as you can because that's what makes a man; men who subscribe to this have trouble finding a mate because everyone runs screaming from someone so out of touch with their emotions. Women are also very negatively affected by such unreasonable standards -- I'd never want my daughter in a classroom with you, for example, if all you were going to tell her was that a lifetime of passive servitude is the best she could hope for.

I hope you understand how damaging what you're saying is to the idea of youth in America.

Llamas
07-13-2008, 11:58 PM
Single-sex classrooms are a great idea. I read a whole bunch of stuff on this last year, so if you want documented stuff, it'll take me a while to find the books...so, sorry. But, teachers will gear their lessons towards boys at younger ages. They teach to the boys....give them attention, call on them, focus on them, etc. They usually do not even realize they are doing this. When asked later why they behaved this way, they say because the boys will misbehave or not pay attention otherwise....meanwhile, the girls are already made to feel like second class citizens (at seven years old!!)
That's really interesting. I've thought about these kinds of things in my own situations... wondering if I focus on/call on certain people over others. Very interesting about gearing toward boys... I might have to read up on that.


Also, girls are taught boys don't like smart girls, it isn't attractive, etc. So, why bother appearing intelligent? They won't get a man (ever see *Mean Girls*?).
That I've definitely noticed plenty. Very, very sad.

There have been some good points brought up about the single-sex classrooms... there's still a lot of grey area to me about it being a good idea or not, but a lot of new pros have been mentioned.

Rag Doll
07-14-2008, 12:00 AM
the only way the teacher in one of the studies knew she did it was because they videotaped her. then they gave her like percentages on how often she went to the boys versus the girls and stuff.

*edit*

for anyone interested, look up david and myra sadker. they wrote the book "failing at fairness: how our schools cheat girls" that i was referring to. there are probably articles and stuff on google you can read.

Vera
07-14-2008, 12:39 AM
I wonder how much of discrimination in schools (of boys, as girls do tend to perform better - at least at lower grades - in my country) is up to the education and not the playground culture that sort of dictates that in order to be a good boy, you run around in mud playing with your friends and in order to be a good girl, you study quietly on your own. You know? Being good at school isn't cool among boys. I remember a boy who took German with me and was awesome at it, and thanks to peer pressure he began slacking and his grades dropped to the average among the boys in our German class.

Also, god, Bipolar Bear, once you get into college, do us all a favor and take some damned Gender Studies. Hell, read a book now. Your views are mind-bogglingly ignorant.

The reason it might seem like historically women are not good leaders or do not enjoy confrontation is because in the past, women have rarely held statuses powerful enough to start wars. It's not a difference between genders, it's a difference between the power balance between genders (and the culture that contains it), the fact that men have been the ones with rights to vote and decide things for all of us. And if women generally even to this day of striving for equality don't have an interest in decision-making, it mostly comes down to education and the culture that has taught them, consciously or unconsciously, that they're not fit to rule. Hell, to this day you will find women who actively believe that men should work and govern and women are not fit to do those things (the decision to become a housewife is fine with me - but to generally buy into the ideology that oppresses you, that's just very sad to me).

Personally I think we should look at what makes the education system favor any gender, and what we can do to change it (like I said, some things seem to be cultural, not so much how kids are taught things). I feel the need to also add that while education may favor girls, I think there was a study that the boys who do excel at studies, do much better than girls and have less trouble proving their worth etc.

With that said, I think it's a part of the problem to be talking genders at all here, really. Some boys fail at school, some girls drop out, too. What do those kids have in common? How can we interest them more, how can we make sure they can get to the top as well? One problem might exist primarily in one gender but that doesn't mean we should ignore the same problem with the other gender.

I'm running late for work so I'm out!

wheelchairman
07-14-2008, 07:35 AM
That's really interesting. I think that the problem is that strikers overseas did it because they value education and don't want their education to be shorted by the government. Parents get upset about the lack of funding to education here, but the students, not so much. Well, college students get upset about funding. Are those the sorts of strikes you mean or do students of all levels protest?

Well I don't know about that. You find the same attitudes among students here and there, same levels of ambition. I remember everyone used to complain about the old crap at the middle school and high school level and the lack of funding. But you're not going to have a lot of strikes if you're not organized. So of course nothing happens. There is an entire infrastructure that is simply missing.

At least I remember in my middle school the Student Council was run by the Vice Principal wtf?

wheelchairman
07-14-2008, 07:40 AM
I wonder how much of discrimination in schools (of boys, as girls do tend to perform better - at least at lower grades - in my country) is up to the education and not the playground culture that sort of dictates that in order to be a good boy, you run around in mud playing with your friends and in order to be a good girl, you study quietly on your own. You know? Being good at school isn't cool among boys. I remember a boy who took German with me and was awesome at it, and thanks to peer pressure he began slacking and his grades dropped to the average among the boys in our German class.

It's a relatively new phenomenon that women are getting better grades than boys. You can't really tell someone to go read gender studies if you don't know how the world was made up before gender studies existed. :p

I generally agree that gender divideded educations might be wise, or at least a changes in methodology to account for the differences between people. I think American schools actually were better at this than Danish ones, but that's because Danish ones are in a dire situation when it comes to teachers and how they are trained (badly, that is.)

IamSam
07-14-2008, 09:43 AM
Fucking stupid if you ask me. Here are two major problems:

1. The 'feminine nature' of schools is bullshit. You are supposed to show your teachers respect because they are put into an authority position over you. AND THEY KNOW MORE THAN YOU. I respect people who know more than me and are teaching me what they know.*

2. The 'no homework' thing is stupid. It makes you sound like you're 9 years old. Homework is meant to help students grasp a concept so they can remember it. With NCLB, homework now constitutes as practice for the test (in certain areas). Without that practice, your school would lose funding and would then suck to high heaven. Homework is made to concrete important subject matter into your brain.

What WOULD be nice is a dissolving of NCLB and a complete renovation of the education system. Hopefully Obama can do something about NCLB and the horrible pay scale of teachers in different parts of the country.

Llamas
07-14-2008, 10:03 AM
Fucking stupid if you ask me. Here are two major problems:

1. The 'feminine nature' of schools is bullshit. You are supposed to show your teachers respect because they are put into an authority position over you. AND THEY KNOW MORE THAN YOU. I respect people who know more than me and are teaching me what they know.*

2. The 'no homework' thing is stupid. It makes you sound like you're 9 years old. Homework is meant to help students grasp a concept so they can remember it. With NCLB, homework now constitutes as practice for the test (in certain areas). Without that practice, your school would lose funding and would then suck to high heaven. Homework is made to concrete important subject matter into your brain.

What WOULD be nice is a dissolving of NCLB and a complete renovation of the education system. Hopefully Obama can do something about NCLB and the horrible pay scale of teachers in different parts of the country.

While I agree with you in theory, this isn't always true. There are PLENTY of teachers out there who are not worthy of their students' respect, and that's a huge problem. I know I had a few teachers growing up who had no idea how to manage a classroom, so they pulled the whole "I'm the teacher. You will do as I say because I am smarter than you are." bullshit. A good teacher does not have to do that, because they are able to earn and maintain respect through natural means. I do believe that, if a teacher is put in that position, it's important to respect that to a level... but teachers SHOULD be questioned by their students. Any teacher who gets angry when a student questions them is, in my opinion, a bad teacher.

As far as the homework goes, you are right as far as what homework is meant for. The problem lies in the types of homework that are assigned. Plenty of teachers are lazy and print off fill in the blank worksheets and such, which are merely busy work so that they teachers have something to grade. We should not abolish homework, but much effort needs to be made to raise the standards of homework toward something that is worth while and that the students actually learn from. Also, assignments that are challenging, but not extremely time consuming- many teachers don't tend to consider the fact that students are getting homework from 6 teachers in one day.

Finally, I agree with your third point. I believe that teachers need to be much better trained and qualified. More experience should be required before running a classroom (right now, you do one semester student teaching. That is NOT enough), and then when better qualified teachers start filling these positions, the pay rates must increase.

What REALLY bothers me is that a University professor gets paid more than an elementary teacher. I personally would like to be a professor some day, but I do not believe a professor is more important than an elementary teacher.

Bipolar Bear
07-14-2008, 10:43 AM
Gender studies...yeah right.
I've asked my friend if he thought women were more passive than men overall. He agreed. I then asked my mother, which also agreed. The first person to have put that idea into my mind was probably one of my TEACHERS in high school which is really ironic right now, considering this thread. Women are more passive, it's the truth. It has nothing to do with them not holding positions of power; when they do they obviously don't act like men do. I don't see how you can call my view ignorance. You may consider yourself right but that doesn't mean you are.



What REALLY bothers me is that a University professor gets paid more than an elementary teacher. I personally would like to be a professor some day, but I do not believe a professor is more important than an elementary teacher.

I think it's REALLY obvious why University professors should get paid more. Their job is much harder and requires a lot more training, work, responsibility and stress.




2. The 'no homework' thing is stupid. It makes you sound like you're 9 years old. Homework is meant to help students grasp a concept so they can remember it. With NCLB, homework now constitutes as practice for the test (in certain areas). Without that practice, your school would lose funding and would then suck to high heaven. Homework is made to concrete important subject matter into your brain.


I'm not sure if you read anything or just skimmed through it, since you seem to have completely misunderstood. I didn't say "no homework", I said that we have ample class time to do it, and that wasting our time at home as well as school hinders our personal development and denies us some of our free time. There is a lot of useless shit that we do in school which makes it feel like a daycare, and homework could easily be done in those instances.

bighead384
07-14-2008, 10:48 AM
The current system for education is poorly suited for male students. It has been proved by numerous studies that, in general, female students acheive greater success in school than boys. This is definitely not due to girls being smarter, since the average IQ's of both genders doesn't contain such a difference. This higher rate of success amongst women is primarily explained by behavioral factors.

Firstly, it's undeniable that our current scholar system favors behaviors which are typically feminine, such as obedience and docility. We are taught to obey without questioning, which can be greatly oppressing for male students. An ideal school must respect the fact that we aren't mindless robots and that we require an explanation before being bent to other people's will.

It might have been better to explain this by saying "it's undeniable that our current scholar system favors people who are obedient and docile" or something like that. It's true that most males and females have been socialized to act a certain way, but it's not always necessarily true, so you shouldn't bring gender into this conversation.

I think you have some good ideas though, so I don't think people should get any more hung up on this gender thing.

Llamas
07-14-2008, 10:56 AM
I think it's REALLY obvious why University professors should get paid more. Their job is much harder and requires a lot more training, work, responsibility and stress.

Oh god you are so wrong... our government and society would LOVE for you to believe this is true, but it is just not. A person must be considerably more knowledgeable in a particular subject area to be a professor, but that is all. You don't even have to take classes on how to teach to become a professor. Teaching University currently requires more education as it stands, but that is because our primary and secondary education teachers are severely UNDERtrained, as I previously stated. Teaching kids requires much more responsibility and stress. You have MUCH less freedom, you have parents to deal with, tighter curricula, more work to do besides go to class and lecture for 50 min, and you have to have a massive amount of patience and people skills.

Of course, I am strictly going off of the teaching aspect- the research a professor does often proves to be worth the pay. However, I disagree with the current system that requires researchers for a University to teach. A researcher should be compensated differently from a University professor. But that's not within the topic of this thread.

Little_Miss_1565
07-14-2008, 10:58 AM
I think you have some good ideas though, so I don't think people should get any more hung up on this gender thing.

I think the whole thing here is that Bipolar is using judgmental language to describe women. "Passive" is a negative personality trait, but only positive personality traits are attached to men in what he's saying. My experience with co-ed versus single-sex classrooms has taught me that men are more competitive and women more cooperative. That might be one way to talk about what he's trying to get at instead of what he's doing with attaching judgment to what he has to say.

Llamas
07-14-2008, 11:05 AM
I think the whole thing here is that Bipolar is using judgmental language to describe women. "Passive" is a negative personality trait, but only positive personality traits are attached to men in what he's saying. My experience with co-ed versus single-sex classrooms has taught me that men are more competitive and women more cooperative. That might be one way to talk about what he's trying to get at instead of what he's doing with attaching judgment to what he has to say.
The thing is, I don't even necessarily agree with that... I think that women are more mentally competitive, while men are more actively competitive. I definitely don't (and I know you're not saying this) think that women are "passive", and I don't think they're not competitive. They just use more subtle ways of competing. I would say they are less aggressive, but I wouldn't say they are more passive. I'm not sure if I'm making sense. :-/

bighead384
07-14-2008, 11:11 AM
I think the whole thing here is that Bipolar is using judgmental language to describe women. "Passive" is a negative personality trait, but only positive personality traits are attached to men in what he's saying. My experience with co-ed versus single-sex classrooms has taught me that men are more competitive and women more cooperative. That might be one way to talk about what he's trying to get at instead of what he's doing with attaching judgment to what he has to say.

I'll admit I haven't thought much about this whole issue, but about what you just said...wouldn't you agree that those who are competitive are always more aggressive than passive? So the way I see it, if we are to decide that most men are more competitive then women, then it seems fair to conclude that they are more aggressive than most women. Thus making most women "passive" by comparison.

Little_Miss_1565
07-14-2008, 11:17 AM
I'll admit I haven't thought much about this whole issue, but about what you just said...wouldn't you agree that those who are competitive are always more aggressive than passive? So the way I see it, if most men are more competitive then women, then it seems fair to conclude that they are more aggressive than most women. Thus making most women "passive" by comparison.

Both you and Llamas seem to be missing the main point of what I was saying, in that the judgmental language is not okay. Whether or not you agree with what I proposed as one potential difference between the genders is besides the point.

But, Llamas, in a classroom environment the only competition IS mental. The other women's college near me, though totally turned me off because of how the classes devolved into intellectual pissing matches near those I experienced at Columbia, so maybe it's also an institutional thing. But there you go, you can't pigeonhole an entire section of society by saying they're just one way. For example, Bipolar's continued sidestepping of my question of whether I strike him as passive and avoiding of confrontation. I take his silence as a no.

bighead384
07-14-2008, 11:24 AM
Both you and Llamas seem to be missing the main point of what I was saying, in that the judgmental language is not okay. Whether or not you agree with what I proposed as one potential difference between the genders is besides the point.

But your example of "judgmental language" was the word "passive". For reasons I mentioned in my previous post, I think that the word "passive" is fair if we go by your opinion that women are more cooperative and men are more competitive.

Little_Miss_1565
07-14-2008, 11:37 AM
But your example of "judgmental language" was the word "passive". For reasons I mentioned in my previous post, I think that the word "passive" is fair if we go by your opinion that women are more cooperative and men are more competitive.

No, because "passive" is negative. There are other ways to discuss personality differences as differences and not as judgements, such as "cooperative." It's a neutral term.

Rag Doll
07-14-2008, 11:42 AM
Gender studies...yeah right.


Can I ask why you just blew the idea off? Since you clearly haven't taken any, why not take one in college? In my university, a race and gender course is a requirement to graduate. Just take one. It'll help you understand things a little better than just, "women are passive and are ok with injustice rarararararar!" I'm not trying to insult you or get on you or anything....I'm being 110% serious that you should really take one.

As for University professors....

I, personally, think they deserve it. I think NJ has some pretty decent standards for becoming a teacher. You need to have a regular major (relating in some way to what you want to teach), as well as major in education. It's like a double major. You need a bunch of tests and a certain GPA in order to complete the program, as well as a lot of student teaching. I know, because I was originally in the education program at my school. They deserve pay, but...

I'm going to grad school. By the time I'm done, I'm going to have been in college for abouuuut 10 years? Maybe? I'm getting a Ph.D, so it kind of depends. I will have done a shitload of work, especially compared to the average K-12 teacher that goes to school for 4 years. And, generally, you DO have teaching experience because you teach when you're in grad school. I fully think I'm going to be worth $100k a year.

bighead384
07-14-2008, 11:51 AM
No, because "passive" is negative. There are other ways to discuss personality differences as differences and not as judgements, such as "cooperative." It's a neutral term.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Seems to me that those who are more cooperative than competitive (according to you:women) are obviously going to be more passive than those who are more competitive than cooperative (according to you:men).

Little_Miss_1565
07-14-2008, 12:11 PM
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Seems to me that those who are more cooperative than competitive (according to you:women) are obviously going to be more passive than those who are more competitive than cooperative (according to you:men).

I don't think you're listening to what I'm saying. I am taking issue with the biased and judgmental aspect of the language itself being used. It's sort of like semiotics but not quite. You're talking word meanings (signifiers), and I'm discussing the associations (the signified). They are not necessarily the same thing.

IamSam
07-14-2008, 12:16 PM
I think it's REALLY obvious why University professors should get paid more. Their job is much harder and requires a lot more training, work, responsibility and stress.



Sure as hell a professor doesn't have more responsibility than a K-12 teacher. A K-12 teacher is responsible for a child the minute the child leaves their house till the minute they return to it after school. K-12 teachers have a harder job because they have to teach idiotic cretins who don't want to be in school whereas professors just say 'screw 'em, they're paying for it so it's their loss.'

University professors have a lesser stress level than any K-12 teacher. They don't have to teach to a test. They don't have to 'deal' with idiots in their classroom. They don't have to tiptoe around issues. They don't have to use outdated books. They don't have the work level that K-12, and more specifically K-6 teachers, have. Professors teach a specific area that they have been personally studying for quite a while. K-6 teachers teach all areas and have to keep it interesting. Professors can get up in front of a class and just ramble for an hour and call it good. K-12 teachers can't. They would lose their ADD classrooms if they did that.

You have some crazily construed views of teaching.

Little_Miss_1565
07-14-2008, 12:20 PM
Okay, to settle this, pay is generally based on level of education required. Your average college professor must have at least a master's, and definitely a PhD if they intend to make a career of university teaching. Other teachers generally just need a bachelor's degree.

They're paying the education of the teachers, not the responsibility level.

IamSam
07-14-2008, 12:22 PM
While I agree with you in theory, this isn't always true. There are PLENTY of teachers out there who are not worthy of their students' respect, and that's a huge problem.

The problem lies in the types of homework that are assigned. Plenty of teachers are lazy and print off fill in the blank worksheets and such, which are merely busy work so that they teachers have something to grade. We should not abolish homework, but much effort needs to be made to raise the standards of homework toward something that is worth while and that the students actually learn from. Also, assignments that are challenging, but not extremely time consuming- many teachers don't tend to consider the fact that students are getting homework from 6 teachers in one day.


With your first point, that is why I placed and asterisk. I just forgot to fill out that part. Oops! I do agree though that there are some teachers that do not warrant my respect and do not get it. But on a whole I respect teachers unless one is being a poop.

I also agree with your homework stance. When I begin teaching I plan on really mixing it up. I actually want to incorporate primary sources and research papers into my high school history classrooms because it gets students ready for college and changes up the same old routine of read the textbook, do a worksheet.


Okay, to settle this, pay is generally based on level of education required. Your average college professor must have at least a master's, and definitely a PhD if they intend to make a career of university teaching. Other teachers generally just need a bachelor's degree.

They're paying the education of the teachers, not the responsibility level.

Very true. Even K-12 teachers who have a masters must be paid more. However it still is a dismal amount in some areas of the United States.

wheelchairman
07-14-2008, 01:44 PM
On a bizarre side note, my father who is a teacher was quite pissed for a while that teachers trained in the Teachers-Seminarium were entitled a higher pay grade than he was (he is qualified to be a teacher through his masters degree.)

Llamas
07-14-2008, 02:10 PM
Both you and Llamas seem to be missing the main point of what I was saying, in that the judgmental language is not okay. Whether or not you agree with what I proposed as one potential difference between the genders is besides the point.
I didn't miss that point...


But, Llamas, in a classroom environment the only competition IS mental.
Mmm not in my experience. Regardless, bipolar wasn't just talking about in the classroom.


The other women's college near me, though totally turned me off because of how the classes devolved into intellectual pissing matches near those I experienced at Columbia, so maybe it's also an institutional thing. But there you go, you can't pigeonhole an entire section of society by saying they're just one way. For example, Bipolar's continued sidestepping of my question of whether I strike him as passive and avoiding of confrontation. I take his silence as a no.
Exactly. I'm in full agreement with you on that, as I have been all along.

I think that, once again, I'm having a hard time expressing myself. Ah well.



As for University professors....

I, personally, think they deserve it. I think NJ has some pretty decent standards for becoming a teacher. You need to have a regular major (relating in some way to what you want to teach), as well as major in education. It's like a double major. You need a bunch of tests and a certain GPA in order to complete the program, as well as a lot of student teaching. I know, because I was originally in the education program at my school. They deserve pay, but...

I'm going to grad school. By the time I'm done, I'm going to have been in college for abouuuut 10 years? Maybe? I'm getting a Ph.D, so it kind of depends. I will have done a shitload of work, especially compared to the average K-12 teacher that goes to school for 4 years. And, generally, you DO have teaching experience because you teach when you're in grad school. I fully think I'm going to be worth $100k a year.

I don't think that a professor ISN'T worth it: I do think that a primary or secondary school teacher IS ALSO worth it. I honestly think that K-12 and professors should be paid similarly (not SAME, but relatively closer). As I said before, I also think that K-12 teachers should be forced to undergo more education. A double major is great, and student teaching is great, but I think a graduate type degree should be required. I think K-12 teachers should make more, but I also think they need to earn it. A large number of K-12 teachers out there right now do not deserve much more than they currently make.

Bipolar Bear
07-14-2008, 06:47 PM
Sure as hell a professor doesn't have more responsibility than a K-12 teacher. A K-12 teacher is responsible for a child the minute the child leaves their house till the minute they return to it after school. K-12 teachers have a harder job because they have to teach idiotic cretins who don't want to be in school whereas professors just say 'screw 'em, they're paying for it so it's their loss.'

University professors have a lesser stress level than any K-12 teacher. They don't have to teach to a test. They don't have to 'deal' with idiots in their classroom. They don't have to tiptoe around issues. They don't have to use outdated books. They don't have the work level that K-12, and more specifically K-6 teachers, have. Professors teach a specific area that they have been personally studying for quite a while. K-6 teachers teach all areas and have to keep it interesting. Professors can get up in front of a class and just ramble for an hour and call it good. K-12 teachers can't. They would lose their ADD classrooms if they did that.

You have some crazily construed views of teaching.

Instead of focusing on the fact that you disagree with half the adjectives I've thrown in there, you could face the fact that the others are undeniable and not as much a matter of opinion:

a) Larger amount of education needed
b) Larger intellectual difficulty in becoming a professor
c) Larger amount of work needed

The responsibility factor can be argued about, and is more a matter of opinion, but, more importantly, the quantitative factors of my argument go in favor of the university professors. I'm therefore fairly certain that I've won this particular point, unless you bring in more arguments for the k-12 side which you have failed to do in your post. The fact that you told me my views were odd was uncalled for, due to all these reasons, and it's rather the contrary.



I don't think that a professor ISN'T worth it: I do think that a primary or secondary school teacher IS ALSO worth it. I honestly think that K-12 and professors should be paid similarly (not SAME, but relatively closer). As I said before, I also think that K-12 teachers should be forced to undergo more education. A double major is great, and student teaching is great, but I think a graduate type degree should be required. I think K-12 teachers should make more, but I also think they need to earn it. A large number of K-12 teachers out there right now do not deserve much more than they currently make.

You should have told us that beforehand. When I first read your post you hadn't made that distinction, so it's rather unfair. Currently, become a grade school teacher requires a lot less training and work and they deserve to get paid less. If it were to be equal or closer, it would of course force me to reconsider the subject.


No, because "passive" is negative. There are other ways to discuss personality differences as differences and not as judgements, such as "cooperative." It's a neutral term.

Let's not get caught up on word connotations and focus more on their meaning and what we're trying to say. I have no desire to begin playing that game and start picking synonyms for everything I said. Neutralizing my entire messages won't change the main ideas, and if you agree with "cooperative" you agree with "passive", as stated by bighead.


It might have been better to explain this by saying "it's undeniable that our current scholar system favors people who are obedient and docile" or something like that. It's true that most males and females have been socialized to act a certain way, but it's not always necessarily true, so you shouldn't bring gender into this conversation.

I think you have some good ideas though, so I don't think people should get any more hung up on this gender thing.

Yes, but for the sake of a societal conversation I've grouped human beings as a generic group. I do realize there are exceptions, and that some males succeed extremely well in our current system. If we start talking about every single exception we'll never get finished.

Something as complex as a society is impossible to accurately judge, and simplifying it is the only way we can get a clearer idea. By the way, this reminds me of the book Foundation, a great book where a man could predict the future but to achieve this he had to stop focusing on every small aspect of human life and focus on the big picture and group behavior.

IamSam
07-14-2008, 07:37 PM
No, you're still wrong on these counts:

1. Harder
2. Work
3. Responsibility
4. Stress

Appearently you need to retake some of your literary classes because you didn't read any of what I typed. K-12 teachers have it harder due to funding and students, have more work on them due to the fact they can't just stand and preach to students, have more responsibility for said students, and have undo stress due to said work, responsibility, and the toughness of their job.

Llamas
07-14-2008, 08:20 PM
You should have told us that beforehand. When I first read your post you hadn't made that distinction, so it's rather unfair. Currently, become a grade school teacher requires a lot less training and work and they deserve to get paid less. If it were to be equal or closer, it would of course force me to reconsider the subject.
I said at least a couple times earlier in this thread that K-12 teachers should require considerably more training/education than they currently do.

However, I don't agree at all that more training = more pay. Some dude can pick up a guitar one day and 2 months later get a record deal and get rich, while someone spends 10 years in school to get a PhD in some sort of plant ecology. The guitar player had much less training, but will make considerably more money. Our society simply doesn't function in a more training = more pay way, so I don't think it's fair to argue that as the reason profs make more.

jacknife737
07-14-2008, 09:30 PM
However, I don't agree at all that more training = more pay. Some dude can pick up a guitar one day and 2 months later get a record deal and get rich, while someone spends 10 years in school to get a PhD in some sort of plant ecology. The guitar player had much less training, but will make considerably more money. Our society simply doesn't function in a more training = more pay way, so I don't think it's fair to argue that as the reason profs make more.

Then why do you think they make more? Sure there are several examples where more training does not always equal more pay, but here i think it is the case. To acquire a doctorate it requires far more time and money then a teaching certificate, it is also more difficult to acquire, thus the rewards should be greater. Now, I am in no way claiming that professors work harder, and I completely agree that teachers are vastly underpaid.

Edit: I also agree with your idea of requiring teachers to have more training, and thus should be paid more.

Bipolar Bear
07-14-2008, 10:04 PM
No, you're still wrong on these counts:

1. Harder
2. Work
3. Responsibility
4. Stress

Appearently you need to retake some of your literary classes because you didn't read any of what I typed. K-12 teachers have it harder due to funding and students, have more work on them due to the fact they can't just stand and preach to students, have more responsibility for said students, and have undo stress due to said work, responsibility, and the toughness of their job.

That's really easy to say, and I think you're the one who didn't read my post. Instead of making two phrased posts which simply say the contrary of mine without any valid reason, you might want to consider actually bringing something to this conversation. Did you actually read my post before posting yours, because it already answers everything you just said.

1 & 2:
It's harder to become a university professor. The material they teach is very complex and they need to master it completely before starting their job. I'm sorry, but although you *may* argue that K-12 teachers are more stressed, this is something rather unprovable. Here are the facts: babysitting a bunch of children is something a teenager could do. It doesn't require any training, and much less work.

3 & 4:

Instead of focusing on the fact that you disagree with half the adjectives I've thrown in there, you could face the fact that the others are undeniable and not as much a matter of opinion:

a) Larger amount of education needed
b) Larger intellectual difficulty in becoming a professor
c) Larger amount of work needed


The responsibility factor can be argued about, and is more a matter of opinion, but, more importantly, the quantitative factors of my argument go in favor of the university professors. I'm therefore fairly certain that I've won this particular point, unless you bring in more arguments for the k-12 side which you have failed to do in your post. The fact that you told me my views were odd was uncalled for, due to all these reasons, and it's rather the contrary.


I'd like you to behave more maturely and not throw the illiterate, retarded/crazy or uneducated card whenever you're starting to run out of arguments (which happened very rapidly, in fact you have barely brought anything new to this thread). Thanks to miss and lama for bringing some good points, try to take their example my friend.

Little_Miss_1565
07-14-2008, 10:22 PM
Let's not get caught up on word connotations and focus more on their meaning and what we're trying to say. I have no desire to begin playing that game and start picking synonyms for everything I said. Neutralizing my entire messages won't change the main ideas, and if you agree with "cooperative" you agree with "passive", as stated by bighead.

But, you see, the connotations of words you use say a lot more than you think you're saying, whether or not you want to own that. A word's meaning is arbitrary and inexact. I could drop a lot of science (library science?) about the nature of signs and the slipperiness of language, but mama's tired. The moral of the story is that you don't get around connotation just because you don't feel like engaging with it. Your chosen words belie a real problem with those of the XX persuasion and you might want to unpack that at some point.

IamSam
07-14-2008, 10:28 PM
That's really easy to say, and I think you're the one who didn't read my post. Instead of making two phrased posts which simply say the contrary of mine without any valid reason, you might want to consider actually bringing something to this conversation. Did you actually read my post before posting yours, because it already answers everything you just said.

1 & 2:
It's harder to become a university professor. The material they teach is very complex and they need to master it completely before starting their job. I'm sorry, but although you *may* argue that K-12 teachers are more stressed, this is something rather unprovable. Here are the facts: babysitting a bunch of children is something a teenager could do. It doesn't require any training, and much less work.

3 & 4:


I'd like you to behave more maturely and not throw the illiterate, retarded/crazy or uneducated card whenever you're starting to run out of arguments (which happened very rapidly, in fact you have barely brought anything new to this thread). Thanks to miss and lama for bringing some good points, try to take their example my friend.

Jim, with your past I'm giving you what you deserve.

On your first points in this post:

I do agree, becoming a university professor is harder. Being one is not. I'll explain.

University professors stick to one topic of interest. They normally have put in a lot of time becoming a professor in their area therefore taking the 'hardness' out of being one off of them. Take a math teacher for example. Learning the formulas etc. was the hard part as was how to teach them. By the time a professor becomes a professor, they should know how to teach. It becomes much easier to be a teacher at this point. They know what they are doing and they know how to do it. It's hard to become, easy to be.

As for you offhand babysitter comment, I'm guessing you are one of those 'children' that need to be babysat. The problem is while teachers are supposed to be 'babysitting' the hooligans, they are also supposed to be taking notes of any learning disabilities, physical disabilities, or plain problems students may have. Professors don't have to do this, nor do they have to deal or tolerate classroom disturbances. They can easily call security and have the student removed or ask the student to remove their self.

As for professors having more work, that is laughable. Professors recycle things that they do and always stick to the same thing: Lecture, discuss, paper, repeat. K-12 teachers mix things up and work on their classroom a heck of a lot more than professors. I know teachers who spend five hours outside of class a day with classroom related things. College professors on the other hand, doubtful. To this point, every single professor I have had has stuck to their same methods of teaching, as well as their lectures for the past many years. Almost all of the K-12 teacher I know are constantly tweaking and fixing things for various lessons throughout the year. They want students to get it, which leads me to this:

While professors do care if their students get it (the subject matter), if they don't it doesn't hurt them. They get paid regardless if Tom the partier fails or not. They get paid either way. K-12 teachers need to get funding for their classrooms, and, under some stupid NCLB guidelines, you can lose your schools federal funding if classes don't keep up with the tests. There are also other issues that professors don't have to worry about: Supplies.

Professors get computers, projectors, unlimited resources, and their students have to buy their own books. K-12 teachers don't get that option. I know a few teachers that have spent $800-$1000 of their own money every summer just to have supplies and books for their classrooms. Through having these unlimited resources and not having to worry about books for their classroom, professors have less stress, less responsibility, work less, and live easier lifestyles than K-12 teachers.

That is being a professor, not becoming one.

jacknife737
07-14-2008, 10:34 PM
What IamSam said.

Bipolar Bear
07-14-2008, 11:02 PM
Jim, with your past I'm giving you what you deserve.


I've already waited through my ban and got what I deserved. Now I deserve as much respect as everyone else, and I won't accept being reminded every single day that I'm a submember of this forum. Neither should you be the one deciding what I deserve or not. If you noticed, I haven't been impolite through my entire time back, and if you don't want me to start being impolite, don't treat me this way.

I could have worded that last paragraph in an extremely unpleasant way, but I didn't. That doesn't mean I'm not serious. Cut it out.

The rest of your post is very good, thanks for agreeing that becoming a professor is harder. That is in fact what I mostly believe in, and although I still believe that a life as a kindergarden teacher is better than one of a professor if we disregard salary, and that it requires less thinking/work, I can see how you can think the contrary based on your last post.



As for you offhand babysitter comment, I'm guessing you are one of those 'children' that need to be babysat.


As a matter of fact, I wasn't one of those children who had to be babysat and I've always succeeded well in our current educational system, believe it or not. I tend to think outside the box instead of only for myself. My views are completely unreflective of my past experience, and are based on personal judgment. Some people allow the fact that they're a teacher, a woman, or something else change their opinions somewhat, but not me. You can't make any accurate estimate on who I really am from anything I posted on these boards. Now here's a shocker: I'm actually a woman.

IamSam
07-14-2008, 11:15 PM
Neither should you be the one deciding what I deserve or not.


Actually, it is my prerogative to decide what you deserve or not because it is my opinion. I think you deserve to have all sorts of shit flung your way. But I'm not going to do it unless I believe you deserve it in certain circumstances.

The rest of your post was very well laid out. And thank you for actually acting like a human being who gives two flying fucks for once.

Bipolar Bear
07-14-2008, 11:22 PM
Actually, it is my prerogative to decide what you deserve or not because it is my opinion. I think you deserve to have all sorts of shit flung your way. But I'm not going to do it unless I believe you deserve it in certain circumstances.

The rest of your post was very well laid out. And thank you for actually acting like a human being who gives two flying fucks for once.

And how exactly have I deserved it in this circumstance? Using your train of thought, it's my prerogative to decide what YOU deserve, and I could very well decide you deserve to get a bunch of shit flung at you too. And hell, perhaps this shit could be flung by me. I want both of us not to get shit flung at, which was basically what I was trying to accomplish. The fact that you've just decided to ignore this makes you quite wrong, so I'd appreciate you reconsidering and being more polite since I've been respectful towards you.

By the way, all my posts were well laid out. It's only the first post that agreed with something you said, which is why you liked it more. You're really quite silly.

Little_Miss_1565
07-14-2008, 11:22 PM
Actually, it is my prerogative to decide what you deserve or not because it is my opinion. I think you deserve to have all sorts of shit flung your way. But I'm not going to do it unless I believe you deserve it in certain circumstances.

Actually, I think it's closer to being the prerogative of 15 of my friends...let's play nice.

Bipolar Bear
07-14-2008, 11:29 PM
I've waited through my ban, and am very thankful to all the mods. That being said, I don't want to constantly be treated as some kind of idiot and if that is anyone's opinion, keep it your opinion for all I care but don't treat me any worse if you don't want to be treated badly yourself. If you want me to treat you well, and not like on my older account, you'll have to do the same for me which is only common courtesy.

IamSam
07-14-2008, 11:35 PM
And how exactly have I deserved it in this circumstance? Using your train of thought, it's my prerogative to decide what YOU deserve, and I could very well decide you deserve to get a bunch of shit flung at you too. And hell, perhaps this shit could be flung by me. I want both of us not to get shit flung at, which was basically what I was trying to accomplish. The fact that you've just decided to ignore this makes you quite wrong, so I'd appreciate you reconsidering and being more polite since I've been respectful towards you.

Fair enough. Logical and thought out. No shit will be thrown. I will treat you civil until you act like an idiot. Then I'll treat you like any other idiot I've run across on here.While reading that paragraph all I could think of was the stupid Madagascar monkey saying, 'If you have any poo, fling it now!'


By the way, all my posts were well laid out. It's only the first post that agreed with something you said, which is why you liked it more. You're really quite silly.

They weren't and it was proven by your use of word connotations and lack of detailing exactly what you were saying.


Actually, I think it's closer to being the prerogative of 15 of my friends...let's play nice.

No offense Little Miss, but I'm standing next to my words. People on here, mods included, make decisions all the time on what they think others on here deserve. It's human nature and their opinion. While I agree that in the grand scope of things youse guyse decide on what people deserve, people do decide through their opinion of others of how they will treat those people. IE: What they deserve. But, as I stated to BB, I'm not throwing shit because for once in their limited posting life, they are actually trying to make sense.

Bipolar Bear
07-14-2008, 11:46 PM
Actually, I think it's closer to being the prerogative of 15 of my friends...let's play nice.

Thanks little_miss :)



Fair enough. Logical and thought out. No shit will be thrown. I will treat you civil until you act like an idiot. Then I'll treat you like any other idiot I've run across on here.While reading that paragraph all I could think of was the stupid Madagascar monkey saying, 'If you have any poo, fling it now!'



They weren't and it was proven by your use of word connotations and lack of detailing exactly what you were saying.


I'm glad about this. I'll admit my first post wasn't developed, but it just touched on so many issues that developing it all would have been a huge task. For every question it has raised I've further developed that particular aspect, which was what I've been planning on doing since the start. As for the connotations, they are largely arbitrary and I think the main ideas are more important.

Anyway, you couldn't expect me to expand on everything in my first post, that would have been too much. I get the feeling it's maybe the only post you read, but I may be wrong. Anyway, my other posts, which were focused on segments of my first, were also very well developed and explained my opinions through detailing why exactly I have them.

Rag Doll
07-15-2008, 08:17 PM
Actual abuse is pretty much not okay coming from anyone, and it would be really great to get some more people on board to exert some peer pressure to elevate the level of discourse on the forums.

In the spirit of elevating discourse....let's get this back on track.

Bipolar Bear, I asked you some posts back why you seemingly blew off the idea of a gender studies course. I didn't see a reply. Can you answer, please, or paste your reply?

Betty
07-15-2008, 10:45 PM
I think my biggest hesitation regarding taking a gender studies course, or say, reading some feminist literature, would be that it could be totally hit or miss. I think I'm definitely at the point where I'd be interested in gaining a broader perspective on the subject, but I would want it to come from a source that I feel is intelligent and enlightening.

JohnnyNemesis
07-15-2008, 10:48 PM
I think my biggest hesitation regarding taking a gender studies course, or say, reading some feminist literature, would be that it could be totally hit or miss.

But doesn't that apply to pretty much every single subject in the Humanities? Isn't it all hit or miss? I'm asking because I don't quite understand why that concern is so often levied against feminist or "radical" scholarship when it applies to everything studied in the Humanities.

Or, rather, I do understand why and I'd be probably happier if I didn't think about it...

Bipolar Bear
07-15-2008, 10:57 PM
Bipolar Bear, I asked you some posts back why you seemingly blew off the idea of a gender studies course. I didn't see a reply. Can you answer, please, or paste your reply?

Mostly since it's rather opinion-related and arbitrary, and not something I'd be interested enough in.


I think my biggest hesitation regarding taking a gender studies course, or say, reading some feminist literature, would be that it could be totally hit or miss. I think I'm definitely at the point where I'd be interested in gaining a broader perspective on the subject, but I would want it to come from a source that I feel is intelligent and enlightening.

Yeah, exactly.

JohnnyNemesis
07-15-2008, 10:59 PM
No offense, but that sounds like someone who's afraid of critical thinking...

Bipolar Bear
07-15-2008, 11:01 PM
Not really, but I'd rather learn about something concrete than learn about an individual's opinion.

Rag Doll
07-15-2008, 11:03 PM
Do you only study like, math? or scientific formulas?

I think that's an issue with any of the Humanities or Social Sciences, like Rick said before. And like all the social sciences, there is tons of research that has been done and studies and scholars and whatnot.

JohnnyNemesis
07-15-2008, 11:06 PM
But nothing you study, including that stuff, is solely about an "individual's opinion". It's based on individuality, sure, but everything you study has influences, sources, arguments, and yes, opinions included. It seems like you're shying away from something, or maybe just boiling something really complicated down to a single thing...?

I mean, personally, I'd rather be an active part of my education, instead of sitting there and having shit thrown at me.

Bipolar Bear
07-15-2008, 11:07 PM
Do you only study like, math? or scientific formulas?

I think that's an issue with any of the Humanities or Social Sciences, like Rick said before. And like all the social sciences, there is tons of research that has been done and studies and scholars and whatnot.

Yeah, that's what I'm studying actually, heh. I'm interested in philosophy and such, but I don't see how you can be TAUGHT philosophy, it's not something that's teachable really.


But nothing you study, including that stuff, is solely about an "individual's opinion". It's based on individuality, sure, but everything you study has influences, sources, arguments, and yes, opinions included. It seems like you're shying away from something, or maybe just boiling something really complicated down to a single thing...?

I mean, personally, I'd rather be an active part of my education, instead of sitting there and having shit thrown at me.

You have to admit there's a big difference in "opinion vs facts" between, let's say, scientific courses and humanitarian ones. Scientific courses may still have a degree of opinions and such but it's much less significant.

Little_Miss_1565
07-15-2008, 11:07 PM
interested in gaining a broader perspective

lol u said "broad"

JohnnyNemesis
07-15-2008, 11:10 PM
Yeah, that's what I'm studying actually, heh. I'm interested in philosophy and such, but I don't see how you can be TAUGHT philosophy, it's not something that's teachable really.

If you study philosophy, then everything I just suggested about you is completely wrong. And philosophy is the ultimate in "just some dude's opinion". You should be someone who loves that stuff! I ARE TEH CONFUZION

Bipolar Bear
07-15-2008, 11:11 PM
If you study philosophy, then everything I just suggested about you is completely wrong. And philosophy is the ultimate in "just some dude's opinion". You should be someone who loves that stuff! I ARE TEH CONFUZION

Yeah, I love that stuff. I just don't see how it can be taught with any seriousness. I didn't say I was studying philosophy. I said I was studying math and sciences. Reread the quote I made then my post, you'll see what I meant.

Rag Doll
07-15-2008, 11:12 PM
Yeah, that's what I'm studying actually, heh. I'm interested in philosophy and such, but I don't see how you can be TAUGHT philosophy, it's not something that's teachable really.

ha, ok. i'm sorry if i'm like really...hm, getting on you, a bit maybe, about this. it's just, when you major in the field (and this is one of the fields i'm majoring in), it's sometimes hard to ever have a discussion about the issue with someone that doesn't share your viewpoint, because you kind of just...don't have interaction with them, you know? so i like trying to really get at people's views on the subject.

i think you can be taught philosophy. i guess i say this because i've taken some just general philosophy classes and a few political philosophy classes. you can definitely teach it as well as let people make their own interpretations....which is really true of most things, i think.

Little_Miss_1565
07-15-2008, 11:13 PM
Yeah, that's what I'm studying actually, heh. I'm interested in philosophy and such, but I don't see how you can be TAUGHT philosophy, it's not something that's teachable really. You have to admit there's a big difference in "opinion vs facts" between, let's say, scientific courses and humanitarian ones. Scientific courses may still have a degree of opinions and such but it's much less significant.

The gender studies and philosophy courses that I've taken are actually quite similar in that what you study is not just the views of one person, but rather the views and theories of several people, which you then by means of critical thinking and research test, interpret/reinterpret, and apply to original topics of your own design in term papers, etc. So it's not "opinion vs facts," it's "several theories vs your own critical thinkings kills."

JohnnyNemesis
07-15-2008, 11:15 PM
^Everything you just said is completely dead-on.

I think only being "taught" things is just plain awful. You have to be taught things, and then your ability to do something with those things has to be cultivated.


Reread the quote I made then my post, you'll see what I meant.

I completely misread; my bad.

Bipolar Bear
07-15-2008, 11:16 PM
The gender studies and philosophy courses that I've taken are actually quite similar in that what you study is not just the views of one person, but rather the views and theories of several people, which you then by means of critical thinking and research test, interpret/reinterpret, and apply to original topics of your own design in term papers, etc. So it's not "opinion vs facts," it's "several theories vs your own critical thinkings kills."

I see, I just don't think I have to take a course in something to have an opinion about it. Of course, seeing the opinions of numerous people and having time to reflect on them yourself will give you a greater understanding, but it's still something you could do yourself by reading and such.




I completely misread; my bad.

No problem.

Little_Miss_1565
07-15-2008, 11:19 PM
I see, I just don't think I have to take a course in something to have an opinion about it. Of course, seeing the opinions of numerous people and having time to reflect on them yourself will give you a greater understanding, but it's still something you could do yourself by reading and such.

Yes, but then you kind of end up in the territory of the people who used to show up to all my old high school's board meetings to complain about Spanish classses: "If English was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for our children." They can have an opinion about whatever they want, it's just that the rest of the world may laugh at them for not bothering to inform themselves fully, or if they did bother to inform themselves, it was through use of horribly misguided sources that they may not have realized were horribly misguided. Y'know?

Betty
07-15-2008, 11:22 PM
Rick, yes, exactly. Sorry. I was actually about to add a sentence at the end that said something exactly to that effect... I think the problem is that I couldn't come up with the word "Humanities" and I was stuck on "social sciences" and then it kinda slipped my mind.

But yes, that would apply to everything in the Humanities. HOWEVER, I suspect that gender studies in particular could be a little more risky, just because it's more... controversial? And... maybe more... subjective? I feel that anything on religion would definitely have the same problem.

I'm a scientist. I haven't studies that much in the way of Arts and Humanities. But now that I'm in grad school and have so much more time on my hands, I've been starting to retroactively learn everything I missed out on. But, my time is limited, so I feel I should be very choosey.

I mean... you take an intro philosophy course and you study a few texts by a few "great thinkers"... you may love or hate the prof... you may think the philosophers are full of hot air... but at least you're probably learning something pretty "fundamental" that you should probably be exposed to. You take an intro sociology course... and it could definitely range between boring and enlightening... but it's probably going to be a bunch of facts/studies and what conclusions were drawn from them. And a bunch of terms. I don't know what to expect from gender studies, and I feel like it would possibly be more subjective and less fundamental? Hence, more hit or miss? Oui?

Not that I'm really desperately trying to defend this point... I was just saying.

p.s. this is your chance to recommend what I SHOULD read that would be fundamental/enlightening/logical/etc... I am actually interested... but haven't stumbled across many recommendations...

Bipolar Bear
07-15-2008, 11:25 PM
Yes, but then you kind of end up in the territory of the people who used to show up to all my old high school's board meetings to complain about Spanish classses: "If English was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for our children." They can have an opinion about whatever they want, it's just that the rest of the world may laugh at them for not bothering to inform themselves fully, or if they did bother to inform themselves, it was through use of horribly misguided sources that they may not have realized were horribly misguided. Y'know?

Yeah, of course. I'm not saying to adopt any random opinion, but my reading a lot about other people's opinions you could get a clearer opinion yourself, and achieve pretty much the same as by taking one of those courses. The interesting aspect of those courses it being able to discuss the subject at hand with other people, and debate it, I'd think. I also agree with Betty's last post.

Little_Miss_1565
07-15-2008, 11:25 PM
I think gender studies are a lot more rooted in the way the world actually works than musing for three hours a week on Foucault's panopticon and how it applies to Spanish film.

Sam is a great source of recommended reading.

Betty
07-15-2008, 11:25 PM
AND ARE there really fundamental feminist/gender study texts? Would the majority of courses be taught the same way?

Little_Miss_1565
07-15-2008, 11:27 PM
AND ARE there really fundamental feminist/gender study texts? Would the majority of courses be taught the same way?

Yes, and yes. All theories are subject to interpretation but this is a field that's been around since the 60s. And like all departments it depends on the quality of the program and of the professors guiding the curriculum.

Rag Doll
07-16-2008, 12:00 AM
Sam is a great source of recommended reading.

<3

Off the top of my head, some of the basic stuff I read during some of the earlier courses was...

Privilege, Power, and Difference - Allan G. Johnson. This focuses on race, sex, class, etc. Most gender studies classes *do* focus on all of this, actually. It does get pretty repetitive, at least the edition I read was (it may have been updated since, I read it four years ago). However, it really is eye opening.

Slut! - Leora Tanenbaum. This focuses a lot on how younger women are treated. For example, it's ok for guys to have sex in high school, in fact it's celebrated. This is quite the opposite for women. It also discusses women being the worst critics of other women.

Pretty much anything by bell hooks. I've read Class Matters and some sections of Feminism is for Everybody. Again, she focuses on sex, class, and race quite a bit. She writes a lot from personal experience, but at the same time, it is eye opening to what else is going on in the world, outside of what you personally experience every day.

I read this stuff a little later on...though, you don't really need a base knowledge in the subject (it may help a bit for Backlash, I suppose, but..)...

If you're at all interested in the foundations of Second Wave feminism, I strongly suggest picking up Feminism In Our Time (Miriam Schneir). It contains TONS of essays ranging from WWII until sometime in the 1990's. They are from tons of different women speaking on tons of issues. Some of the essays left my entire Feminist Theory class angry and thinking, "what the FUCK is wrong with these women?!" while other essays had us all in agreement with the author.

i'd also suggest reading Backlash by Susan Faludi. It discusses the "backlash" against women since the Second Wave of feminism. I haven't been able to read the whole thing yet, but it's a great read.

if you're looking for any other kind of ideas, let me know.

(note: like Sarah said, there are indeed some fundamental texts, especially if you're looking for stuff that's more in depth. i'm trying to give you more of the intro class stuff to check out)

Betty
07-16-2008, 12:30 AM
I'm definitely coming around to the feminism thing. And have mostly formed my ideas completely from my own experiences. I'm still struggling with a LOT of issues though. Yeah. I have some pretty serious issues with regard to gender. And with regard to myself being a woman. And if I could even coherently sum up those issues, I think that would be a huge step forward. And the problem is... I'm not so much like "girl power, woo"... but I'm like "god, I should have been born a guy." And in that sense, at least, I fight for my acceptance and equality as a female. But I'm weird. I don't even have female friends. Seriously, all of my friends are male. They have been since I started university. It's always like, me, and five or six guys. And it's great, they treat me like one of the guys in almost every regard, and that's how I want to be treated. And it's not that I haven't tried. I just have this disconnect with females. We can just never bridge that gap between acquaintance and friend. I've had a few good female friends over the years, but they are very few and far between, and I'd mostly classify them as fellow "tomboys" or social outcasts (I love social outcasts). And there are a few females I DO get along with really well, but I still feel that our interactions are quite superficial.

Or, for example, I attended my first stagette last weekend, and it was really successful, but MAN, TOO many girls, for sure. I just feel so out of place when I'm in a group of girls. I feel like I'm being fake. And I often feel that the conversations are completely uninteresting to me (makeup, wedding rings - barf, etc.) or are entirely superficial. And the boys have superficial conversations as well (sports - also barf, cars, superhero movies, etc.) but I find their superficial banter at least a lot more funny and entertaining than boring. And this is obviously all a generalization, and I do know a few incredibly intelligent, funny/witty and/or interesting females (some of them on this BBS, many of them in my family), but they are so much harder to come by... and then like I said... I find the average guy a lot more interesting than the average girl. And sometimes this might simply have to do with their preferred activities. I'd rather play golf, play poker, barbecue a steak and drink beer, go to the strip club, or play a nerdy game of Risk, than go shopping, go dancing, spend an hour putting makeup on, watch a soap opera, etc. And yes, these are stereotypical activities, but that's totally what happens.

Anyway, I need to figure this out. Is it me? Is it the female gender? If it is me, do I simply have a preference towards male activities? Am I stuck in some sort of mindset that I shouldn't be? Are males actually better? (Yeah, yeah, "better" is a poor word to use, but are they "different" in a sense that I think is better?) Why? How? And if it IS the female gender, and this is probably the most important point... and what I'm most interested in... CAN they change? And how? And this is why I should maybe become a feminist, and the part that I'm really coming around to. For example, females seem to be naturally less inclined to become informed about the world around them. I know this because this is something I've really struggled with personally. For example, if I look around my office, all or many of the guys will be surfing news sites, wikipedia, blogs, etc. The women, not so much. Guys tend to do this naturally. I don't even really have a natural impulse to do this... I make an effort to keep myself informed, even if I don't always have that information ADD that guys seem to have. And on average, guys seem to shoot for loftier goals. I could go on... there are lots of examples. I feel like I'm constantly battling to make myself equal to men. And not necessarily because of society getting me down, but because of natural flaws. I need to be more decisive, more athletic, more ambitious, more efficient, more informed, more humourous, etc. And if more women decided to not be satisfied fitting into their "roles"... and there are definite roles beyond the obvious ones... could they fight to break out of their either natural or societally-imposed predispositions.

I'm really interested in all of this. And I'd like to figure it out, or at least to expand my opinions. This probably still sounds ignorant... but it's still the phase that I'm trapped in. But I want to learn stuff that makes sense to me and not stuff that infuriates me. And I KNOW there will be lots out there that does infuriate me.

Betty
07-16-2008, 12:38 AM
Or... wait... I guess it would be okay to read some stuff that infuriates me... for the sake of comparison... or to be exposed to the different view points. But I would love to read some texts that really hit home and that made lightbulbs turn on.

Rag Doll
07-16-2008, 01:00 AM
And the problem is... I'm not so much like "girl power, woo"... but I'm like "god, I should have been born a guy." And in that sense, at least, I fight for my acceptance and equality as a female.

lulz, you sound like me before i took this absolutely mindblowing class with this absolutely amazing woman. who was also the same way until she experienced a whoooole bunch of shit first hand in the 70's. then she developed a whole ton of classes and became a pretty amazing feminist and political scholar.



But I'm weird. I don't even have female friends. Seriously, all of my friends are male.....I just have this disconnect with females.......I've had a few good female friends over the years, but they are very few and far between, and I'd mostly classify them as fellow "tomboys" or social outcasts (I love social outcasts)......
I just feel so out of place when I'm in a group of girls. I feel like I'm being fake. And I often feel that the conversations are completely uninteresting to me (makeup, wedding rings - barf, etc.) or are entirely superficial.

I didn't have female friends (except for 2) until this past year, when I started hanging out a lot with a close friend's sister and cousin. i still only have 2 female friends that i'm super close with though. my best friend from the time i was 6 until i was about 16 was a guy. and during that whole time period, again, only 2-3 close female friends. i don't feel like i fit in or connect as well and i feel like i am being completely fake in order to be nice or make an attempt to....fit in more. and, as you've guessed, i'm a pretty hardcore feminist. you don't need to actually really be friends with girls. and it may not even totally help you to become friends with more girls or understand them better. i think it's definitely made me feel some other sort of.....deeper connection to women as a WHOLE, but not to individual women.




And sometimes this might simply have to do with their preferred activities. I'd rather play golf, play poker, barbecue a steak and drink beer, go to the strip club, or play a nerdy game of Risk, than go shopping, go dancing, spend an hour putting makeup on, watch a soap opera, etc. And yes, these are stereotypical activities, but that's totally what happens.

I'd rather play poker and drink and play video games than watch a soap opera too. and these are stereotypically male things....but why? males are taught from a young age what is expected from them, versus what is expected from women. i think, for me, i tend to enjoy a lot of the "stereotypically male" things because i hung out with boys and did what they were sort of...brought up to do. my boyfriend is friends with all girls and he's a big fan of watching sad movies and crying. go figure. i think a lot (if not most or all) of these stereotypes would disappear if boys and girls were socialized differently. and then you'd probably find more girls that are willing to admit they also would rather drink beer than watch the Hills.


Anyway, I need to figure this out. Is it me? Is it the female gender? If it is me, do I simply have a preference towards male activities? Am I stuck in some sort of mindset that I shouldn't be? Are males actually better? (Yeah, yeah, "better" is a poor word to use, but are they "different" in a sense that I think is better?) Why? How? And if it IS the female gender, and this is probably the most important point... and what I'm most interested in... CAN they change?

I don't think either sex is particularly "different." Just hardcore socialized to like certain things over others. This is my favorite example. Look at any toy store or toy store flier. The boy aisle or boy pages are blue (those that are geared to boys through advertising or the media or where the parents generally bring them...). The toys are trucks and cars and construction sets and GI Joe (who is an ACTION FIGURE, NOT A DOLL) and policemen sets and whatnot. Now, look at the girl aisle or girl pages. It is pink and has baby dolls and kitchen sets and Barbies and easy bake ovens and makeup and dress up sets. So, right there, you already see 4 year olds choosing makeup or cars and that sticks with them. So 20 years later, they're still having those conversations.

Like, little boys aren't taught to go find a wife. They're taught to be big important men and make lots of money and have jobs....and then maybe have a wife to make dinner and pop out kids. Little girls are pretty much forced into thinking about weddings and Prince Charming from a super young age.

As I said, BOTH sexes can change (because BOTH are harmed by all of this)...but it won't happen over night and it needs to start at a young age. Which is why I'm a pretty firm believer in having to take a gender studies class in high school or college, so maybe more eyes will be opened and more children will be raised differently and things will slowly change.




I feel like I'm constantly battling to make myself equal to men. And not necessarily because of society getting me down, but because of natural flaws. I need to be more decisive, more athletic, more ambitious, more efficient, more informed, more humourous, etc. And if more women decided to not be satisfied fitting into their "roles"... and there are definite roles beyond the obvious ones... could they fight to break out of their either natural or societally-imposed predispositions.


That is so common, though I really think you're misplacing the blame on natural flaws when it really should be on society.

I don't think most women are satisfied. I think the thought of trying to overthrow the system of patriarchy, which has been in place a long ass time, is incredibly daunting. it's hard, it's scary, and it is met with a LOT of resistance and hatred, from men AND other women. i firmly believe the "roles" could be broken...and that they are imposed by society, not nature.

i need to try to think a bit more because i had thought of a great book and now i totally forgot it because it's so late.

Rag Doll
07-16-2008, 01:07 AM
Or... wait... I guess it would be okay to read some stuff that infuriates me... for the sake of comparison... or to be exposed to the different view points. But I would love to read some texts that really hit home and that made lightbulbs turn on.


Unfortunately, most of the stuff that "made lightbulbs turn on" wasn't from books, but rather from classroom discussion with a professor I mentioned in another reply. After taking a class with her and having the lightbulbs turn on, the books started to hit home.

Ok, I say, check out these reviews on Amazon and see what maybe sounds the most like what you might be looking for...

The F Word - Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner (http://www.amazon.com/F-Word-Feminism-Jeopardy-Politics-Future/dp/1580051146/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216192594&sr=8-3)*
Feminism In Our Time - Miriam Schneir (http://www.amazon.com/Feminism-Our-Time-Essential-Writings/dp/0679745084/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216192772&sr=1-1)
Sisterhood, Interrupted - Deborah Siegl (http://www.amazon.com/Sisterhood-Interrupted-Radical-Women-Grrls/dp/140398204X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216192857&sr=1-1)*
Backlash - Susan Faludi (http://www.amazon.com/Backlash-Undeclared-Against-American-Women/dp/0307345424/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216192916&sr=1-1)**
Privilege, Power, and Difference - Allan Johnson (http://www.amazon.com/Privilege-Power-Difference-Allan-Johnson/dp/0072874899/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216192977&sr=1-1) (this is the first book I read in the field...)

* = focuses a lot on today's women that do not view feminism as necessary or do not agree with it
** = focuses a lot on how the media and society are trying to turn women away from feminism

Betty
07-16-2008, 01:37 AM
I'm glad you can mostly see where I'm coming from.

One of the things I also want is to be exposed to discussions that I don't feel are at a completely superfical level. For example, I feel your toy catalogue example is quite superficial. And maybe you were doing that for my sake, but I'd like to delve much deeper into these ideas. You DO raise an interesting point that maybe I'm more interested in beer and poker and sports because that's how I was raised. Well, that point itself is not so much as interesting as the idea of whether these activities are in fact better than doing makeup or watching soap operas. I'd like to be able to argue that playing sports is more valuable of an activity than doing one's makeup for an hour. I can understand the interest in makeup because in a sense, it's artistic. But that's definitely not the reason many girls spend time on it; it's because they were simply conditioned to do so. And then you could say watching soap operas is just as silly as being obsessed with sports facts; boys engage in activities that I don't feel are particularly "valuable" either. But on the whole, regardless of the fact that these activities are stereotypically male or female because that's how males and females are raised, I feel like the "male" activities are more valuable activities in general. Do I just feel this way because I'm more interested in them? I think I could probably make a pretty good case that it's not only that. Anyway.

Men being raised to be rich and important? That's a little more interesting. I DO think men and women are fundamentally different. Hell, you could chalk everything up to testosterone. I think men are more agressive because of the testosterone and not just because they were raised with violent action movies and video games and contact sports. Am I wrong on this? I could be. But what about men being funnier? Women being more detail-oriented? Are these traits all societally imposed? I could probably answer these questions just by do more reading on psychological development, so in that case I hate asking these questions as if they're not already answered. But these are the questions I have, and this is what I would like to understand.

Rag Doll
07-16-2008, 01:51 AM
I gave a superficial example because it's one of the easiest to explain and one that everyone has certain witnessed, if not experienced first hand.

The reason the stereotypically male activities are viewed as more valuable by a lot of people is simply because they're male. Maleness has a higher value in general. Many societies would rather have a male baby than a female baby. Males pass on the family name, further increasing their value. This increases the value of everything that is related to men. There is no actual greater value to sports versus makeup (which women only value so highly because it will help them attain the most important thing of all - a man)....just the value society places on it.

I don't think men are more aggressive based on hormones. They're told to not show their emotions because it's weak (women show emotion because they're weak). Instead, they fight and get angry and resort to violence. That's what is seen as male so that's what boys are taught to do (for a GREAT real life example of this, read "Our Guys" by Bernard Lefkowitz...may have spelled the name wrong, whoops). In a way, I think funnier and more detail oriented also relate to how society molds people. Women are generally seen as more tidy, the ones that take care of the house, etc....therefore, maybe more detail oriented. Though, I think generally women would be called "uptight" or "anal," whereas a man that did the same things would be called "detail oriented".....it's all in the connotations of the words, as stated earlier.

Betty
07-16-2008, 02:34 AM
Thanks for the links Sam... I had actually just opened up the amazon.com page when I read your post.

I don't know if any of them seemed to be exactly what I was looking for, or even if that exists. I think I'm more interested in the why than the what. The books seem to summarize how females have been oppressed and what they have done about it and maybe what still needs to be done. But I want to know WHY? Why is society even that way in the first place? I don't know. I'm only basing this on a few reviews, so it's hard to say. But I already read a few things that sent up red flags. Like discussing how women earn 3/4 of what men earn. That's not what I want to read about. Or about how media portrays females. I feel like all this stuff is obvious. But why? Why are things this way? I think the history aspect would be somewhat useful. I'm not much of a history person... I'm more about explanations and ideas than facts, but I think it would be at least useful for context, and maybe some appreciation as to how these ideas really WERE radical only a few decades ago. And although I probably think I have a good appreciation of the struggles women face, there might be some eye openers out there, so I'm sure some parts of these books would at least be good. The question is how much? And how much would I be wading through thinking "yeah, that's obvious, yeah, that's obvious." I thought that this (http://www.amazon.com/Gender-Knot-Revised-Unraveling-Patriarchal/dp/1592133835/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216195887&sr=1-1) book seemed to have pretty good reviews, which I guess is by the same guy that wrote one of the ones you had suggested.

Here's the thing though. I already feel like I disagree with some of the ideas in your last post. I would argue that playing sports is more valuable than doing one's makeup. Playing sports increases fitness, coordination, teamwork, etc, etc. Doing one's makeup, unless it's completely for artistic/creative merit, is much more of a waste of time, in my opinion. I won't argue that women are doing this to live up to beauty standards and to get a man, etc. This is all definitely true.

And I still feel that men ARE more aggressive. Not just because they aren't supposed to be sentimental. But because they just have this obsession with war, and explosions, and fights. I don't feel that this is just conditioning. It seems that they are just more drawn to it. Again, this is just my experience talking, but I would like to see studies to back these statements up. It's a chicken and an egg thing. Are men aggressive because they grew up with action figures and video games or were they drawn to these things because they're aggressive? I need studies! Not just statements. And maybe there are answers to these questions in these books, but so far I'm getting the sense that they're more "society does this, this, and this, and therefore males and females are like this, this, and this." Which I guess is a legitimate approach, but I don't feel like it would answer my questions or make things more clear in my mind. I already understand the basics of society = behaviour. Maybe not all the examples, but the principle is there.

Vera
07-16-2008, 03:38 AM
That's interesting, Michelle, because I'm totally opposite and am kind of awkward with getting male friends. Existing male friends are cool (I do have 3-4), and getting new ones via online interaction is easy for me. But in real life I have this irrational fear of my interest in some guy's friendship being misinterpreted as flirting/romantic interest. The last time I connected with a guy irl who was not already a friend, at the end of the evening he was all "I like you but I have a gf and I'm not interested" and I was just like wtf I just liked him as a friend! Being rejected when you're not even looking to be accepted is super-annoying. Maybe I'm a social retard or something.

Re: Philosophy -- I think it's true that you can just read books by Nietzsche and Kant and Descartes and whatnots on your own, but what Philosophy lessons really help is structuring the incredible whole that is even just the history of Western Philosophy and categorization and structuring thinking is basically what Philosophy is all about. It's the science of thinking and if there was no thinking in the sense of philosophical thinking, there would be no science in the first place, so just for that I feel it's very important to know the basics and understand why it's so crucial in the field of sciences. It also makes you realize a lot of your own thoughts are really not your own at all - the history of thinking before you has produced those thoughts before you.

You can basically trace nearly all forms of science back to philosophy so as the mother of sciences, it's pretty important. (Shit, even the word 'academy' comes from Plato's school..)

I had a fantastic teacher of Philosophy in high school, calm and fascinated with human thought, but also very keen on us students discussing our half-processed teenage philosophies in class. Philosophy really taught me analytical thinking, logic and such scientific concepts better than my actual science classes, where I only took the compulsory courses and just made sure I passed them okay. If you (general you) think Philosophy is just opinions, that's fine, but you have to also understand they're some of the most influential, well-formulated opinions in the world.

As for Gender Studies, I think Sam's making a very good case here. Most ideas of gender are not based on biology as much as they are cultural/social constructions. What is female and what is male is not set in stone. And Gender Studies shows that what is male is often considered more important and more worthwhile than what is female.

So basically what Gender Studies points out is not that putting on make up is a more worthwhile pursuit than playing sports, but rather that the culture we're surrounded by values playing sports more as generally most "male" pursuits are considered more worthwhile.

I wouldn't compare putting on make up with sports, though, but rather watching sports, which also tends to be considered a male activity. You don't get much out of it, a beer belly and a night of fun (or misery if your team loses) with some friends, but it has great social significance anyhow. Talking sports, watching sports but not really participating in the game itself makes as little sense as discussing fashion and make up but it's clearly important to a great bunch of people.

I would personally argue that people regardless of sex will run into conflict that results in outbreaks of violence in extreme cases. In most socities men are the ones who fight and make the decisions to go into war, because they're overall the more dominant sex of the two, but it's difficult to compare because there aren't really that many female-governed societies in the world (matriarchies). Would females as the dominant gender result in peaceful living? Who knows. If I run into studies on this in my major, I will certainly give them a read.

In modern socities of course the male fascination with war and battles could have something to do with the fact they're considered the ultimate ideals of masculinity.

Nicole
07-16-2008, 09:27 AM
6661, that could be taken badly in a feminism oriented topic.

Sanni- I think some people really do think that simplistically about the opposite gender, and it's best to look at not something that's really a fault of yours. But if he's got no idea on some issue like that, probably better off not being his friend anyway.

wheelchairman
07-16-2008, 10:34 AM
Like, little boys aren't taught to go find a wife. They're taught to be big important men and make lots of money and have jobs....and then maybe have a wife to make dinner and pop out kids.


I generally agree with most of what you said. Especially regarding gender roles (although that actually seems to be more natural, the obvious example is that boys universally seem to play with the same kinds of toys and the same kinds of games. No matter what stage of societal development has been achieved.) I disagree with you more on the concept of patriarchy, because that's an incredibly abstract construction, but those exist all over political philosophy.

No my main point was uh... it sounds like little boys in New Jersey were pretty boring, cause over on the west coast everyone wanted to be Hercules or a Power Ranger. Not lawyers... :p

Rag Doll
07-16-2008, 11:39 AM
No my main point was uh... it sounds like little boys in New Jersey were pretty boring, cause over on the west coast everyone wanted to be Hercules or a Power Ranger. Not lawyers... :p

Well, North Jersey is very money hungry ;p

All my male friends wanted to be wrestlers. Except one...he wanted to be a neurosurgeon. ;p

wheelchairman
07-16-2008, 03:01 PM
All my male friends wanted to be wrestlers.

Wow I never truly believed Jersey was white trash...

On the other hand when I was like 5 and watched wrestling I didn't truly understand that the Undertaker didn't actually kill his opponents. (I figured they knew what they were getting into) so I didn't want to be a wrestler myself. Too high of a mortality rate.

Rag Doll
07-16-2008, 03:15 PM
Wow I never truly believed Jersey was white trash...

On the other hand when I was like 5 and watched wrestling I didn't truly understand that the Undertaker didn't actually kill his opponents. (I figured they knew what they were getting into) so I didn't want to be a wrestler myself. Too high of a mortality rate.

At 6 years old, most of the little boys are. their parents want none of it.

the wrestler idea disappears around 10 and changes to "making money and fucking bitches," basically.

wheelchairman
07-16-2008, 04:54 PM
At 10 making money might be it. Chicks still scare them. But yeah that's why every single young male wants to be a sports star. (It sure ain't cause they are all good at sports.) Fucking all the chicks always kicks in around puberty. :p So does the bizarre scare of dying alone.